Journal of Advances in Social Science and Humanities

Received 11 Apr 2020 | Accepted 15 May 2020 | Published Online 20 May 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15520/jassh.v6i5.491
JASSH 6 (5), 1190−1196 (2020) ISSN (O) 2395-6542| IF:1.6

RESEARCH ARTICLE

School Performance, Leadership and Core Behavioral Competencies of

School Heads: Does Higher Degree Matter?
Romeo Jr L. Lepardo1 Manuel E. Caingcoy2
1
Education Program Specialist II,
Surigao del Sur Division,
Department of Education,
Philippines
2
Faculty, Graduate Programs,
College of Education, Bukidnon
State University, Philippines
∗
Abstract
This paper finds out whether a higher degree matters in school perfor-
mance, and in demonstrating leadership and core behavioral competen-
cies among school heads. This was conducted to support the existing
and future policies of the Department of Education and interested
funders for the scholarship and advanced studies of school heads.
Using a cross-sectional method, it involved 192 randomly selected
participants. Data on school performance was obtained at the office
of Surigao del Sur Division, while data on competencies were gath-
ered through the self-administered assessment tools developed by the
Department of Education. These data were analyzed using descriptive
statistics and analysis of variance. Results revealed that there was no
significant difference in the school performance of school heads. This
implies that the highest degree obtained is not a guarantee for better
school performance. As found, those with doctorate degrees had a
very high and consistent demonstration in all dimensions of leadership
and core behavioral competencies. As unveiled, there were significant
differences in the demonstrated competencies based on the highest
educational qualifications. These imply that obtaining the highest de-
grees can allow school heads to acquire, develop, and demonstrate the
competencies consistently better than their counterparts. Results have
implications for DepEd officials, funders, and policy-makers.
Keywords: : Results-based Performance Management System, Highest
Educational Qualifications

1 INTRODUCTION job demands, and factors related to organizational

culture. It is not known yet in any country whether

H
ighly equipped school heads are those who
acquired the optimum level of the neces-
sary competencies needed for the work they
are expected to do. However, competencies would
vary across contexts based on legal requirements,
the highest degree obtained is needed for the work of
a school head. But because of high expectations from
people, for promotion purposes, and the evolving and
pivotal roles (Ferrari, 2018), school heads tend to get
the highest degree before or when they are into the

JASSH 6 (5), 1190−1196 MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL 1190


MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL
work. The question is, does obtaining a higher degree
matter in school performance and in demonstrating
the leadership and core behavioral competencies? Is
it not enough to finish a bachelor’s or a master’s
degree to play leadership roles in school? Can the
policy and decision-makers and department of edu-
cation officials, expect much from school heads who
had advanced studies? Is there enough reason for the
funders to continuously support current and future
school administrators by sending them to continuing
education? These questions may have contradicting
answers.
There have been studies linking leadership and
school performance. However, the performance they
mean was limited to learning, academic achieve-
ment, or grades of students. A few have tried to link
degrees obtained with performance and leadership.
For example, a study found that principals’ leader-
ship styles have no significant correlation with qual-
ification (Sawati, Anwar & Majoka, 2013). Further-
more, the level of education cannot vary the percep-
tions of school leaders towards leadership compe-
tencies. These competencies include organizational
strategy, resource management, communication, col-
laboration, community college advocacy, and pro-
fessionalism (Bechel, 2010). As claimed, principals
who are not well-equipped with the knowledge and
skills in management and leadership would not be
able to improve school performance significantly
(Tilahun, 2014). Again, much in literature are re-
ferring to school performance to student grades or
academic achievement. A study, like the current, is
deemed relevant to contribute to the discussion on
this topic.
For the present study, school performance refers to
the ratings of school heads in-office performance
commitment and review (OPCR) in the different
key results areas. The KRAs are broad categories of
Supplementary information The online version of
this article (https://doi.org/10.15520/jassh.v6i5.491)
contains supplementary material, which is available
to authorized users.
Corresponding Author: Manuel E. Caingcoy
Faculty, Graduate Programs, College of Education,
Bukidnon State University, Philippines
Email: caingcoymanuel@gmail.com
MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL
LEPARDO AND CAINGCOY
general outputs and outcomes in which school heads
are expected to focus on annually (DepEd, 2015).
This performance-based on KRAs includes teaching,
learning, leading, and school operations. With the
implementation of the Results-based Performance
Management System, it allows Department of Ed-
ucation to assess and evaluate the school heads’
performance using a set of criteria. First, the quality
and effectiveness which refers to the extent of actual
performance compared against the target. In short,
effectiveness relates to getting the right things done.
Second, efficiency has something to do with the
extent to which time and resources are used for the
target in every KRA. Thus, it is about doing things
right. Lastly, the timeliness which measures whether
the deliverable was done on time according to the
requirements, rules, and regulations (DepEd, 2012).
Generally, school performance is an over-all and
collective effort between teachers and principals.
Tilahun (2014) argued that it encompasses the full
range of activities that would characterize a school
as being successful. This furthermore includes the
well-motivated and committed teachers, learner sat-
isfaction and involvement, parental involvement, a
clean orderly school environment, and strong princi-
pal leadership. As reported, principals’ performance
has a very weak relationship with teachers’ influence
(Nathanaili, 2016). To ensure high performance, it
requires the effective use of organizational resources
through the leadership functions of planning, orga-
nizing, leading, and monitoring (Lunenburg, 2012).
Besides, the principal performance was found at a
good level and it was influenced by the atmosphere
of school organization and work motivation (Wahab,
2012).
Annually, school heads assess themselves using the
tools on leadership and core behavioral competen-
cies. This is for their annual performance man-
agement and review. At the performance planning
phase, district supervisors put together the results of
their assessment which serve as bases in determining
professional development of school heads and in
searching for potentials resource persons for training,
especially those who had manifested as role models.
Simply, “leadership competency is one of the major
qualities of the principal to ensure the performance
JASSH 6 (5), 1190−1196 (2020) 1191
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE, LEADERSHIP AND CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES OF
SCHOOL HEADS: DOES HIGHER DEGREE MATTER?
of school” (Thapa, 2016, p. 111). “School leadership
competencies in all types of schools were not satis-
factory and adequate to address the growing quality
expectations of learners and parents of schools in
Nepal” (Thapa, 2016, p. 120). Generally, competen-
cies refer to the knowledge, skills, and behaviors
that school heads need to demonstrate to achieve
results. In the present study, leadership competencies
are limited to leading people, people performance
management, and people development. These are
the competencies intended for managerial positions
that apply to third-level officials, chiefs and assis-
tant chiefs, and school heads and department heads
(DepEd, 2015).
Stipulated in the Department of Education’s (2015)
order no. 2, that the core behavior competen-
cies cut across the organizations that include self-
management, professionalism, and ethics, results in
focus, teamwork, service orientation, and innova-
tion.
The highest educational qualification is the obtained
bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate degrees of school
heads at the time the study was conducted. Bechel’s
(2010) study clustered it as high school, 2-year col-
lege, 4-year college, masters, and doctorate levels.
This paper finds out if obtaining a higher degree
can make a significant difference in the school per-
formance and in demonstrating leadership and the
core behavioral competencies among school heads.
It tested the hypothesis that those school heads with
doctorate degrees can perform an outstanding and
extraordinary level of achievement and commitment
than their counterparts (Ho1 ). It also tested that
school heads with doctorate degrees can demonstrate
more consistently higher the leadership and core
behavior competencies over those with master’s and
bachelor’s degrees (Ho2 ).
2 METHODS
The study employed a cross-sectional method to find
answers to the stated questions and hypotheses. Two
sets of adopted assessment tools on leadership and
core behavioral competencies developed by the De-
partment of Education were administered to 191 ran-
JASSH 6 (5), 1190−1196 (2020)
domly chosen school heads from Surigao del Sur Di-
vision. Participants were clustered using their highest
educational qualifications: bachelor’s degrees (57),
master’s degrees (111), and doctorate degrees (24)
for the comparative analysis. The data on school
performance was obtained from the archived records
of the annual Office Performance Commitment Rat-
ing (OPCR) of the school heads in 2018-2019. This
performance covered all key result areas mandated
by the agency for school heads. These data were
requested from the division office. All these data
were analyzed using mean and standard deviation to
provide preliminary information before comparison.
To compare the groups’ school performance, demon-
strated leadership and core behavior competencies,
ANOVA, and post hoc tests using Tukey were per-
formed. These statistics allowed the proponents to
test the hypotheses.
3 RESULTS
The descriptive results are shown in Table 1. These
are on school performance, leadership, and core be-
havior competences of school heads. Based on Of-
fice Performance Commitment and Review Rating
in 2018-2019, school heads have performed very
closely. Whether they have the bachelor’s, master’s,
or doctorate degrees, results show it does matter
and show an advantage since all school heads had
very satisfactory ratings. Thus, all school heads have
exceeded the expectations set in their annual plans.
Regardless of their qualifications, school heads had
demonstrated a high self-management, results fo-
cus, and innovation. This means they all demon-
strated these competencies consistently. However,
those school heads with doctorate degrees appeared
to have a very high demonstration in professionalism
and ethics, teamwork, and service orientation. This
indicates that these individuals are role models in
these aspects of core behaviors. This is supported in
the over-all results of demonstration in core behavior
competences where they also had a very high demon-
stration. In leadership competencies, school heads
had a high demonstration in leading people and
on people’s development. Thus, these competencies
were consistently demonstrated by them.
However,only the school heads with doctorate
degrees had a very high demonstration of people
performance management.
MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL 1192
 LEPARDO AND CAINGCOY
MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL

This means these individuals are role models on Table 1: Descrip ve Sta s cs on School
this aspect of leadership. These descrip-tive Performance and the Level of Demonstrated
comparisons may be confirmed in tables 2, 3, 4, Leadership and Core Behavior Competencies
and 5 in which one-way ANOVA and Post Hoc among School Heads
Tests results are presented. In table 2, it is confirmed
that there is no significant difference in the school
performance of school heads. Therefore, having the
highest educational qualifications does not matter
in performing the key results areas of school-based
management. On leading people, the significant dif-
ference occurred between those with bachelor’s de-
grees and doctorate degrees. In the descriptive results
shown in table 1, both groups had a high demonstra-
tion of this competency where they had a consistent
demonstration and thus, they exceeded the expec-
tations. ANOVA results (F= 4.731, p<0.05) show
that this difference is statistically significant. Using
Tukey, Post Hoc Test revealed further that the Mean
Difference (MD= -14.404*, p<0.05) is also statically
significant. And so, those with doctorate degrees are
of advantage in demonstrating the competency of
leading people. Therefore, a doctorate degree does
matter in leading people. This implies that school
heads with a doctorate can better lead their con-
stituents in their respective schools than their coun-
terparts. For the people performance management
competence, the ANOVA results (F=7.660, p<0.05)
presented a significant difference in the level of
demonstration. The significant difference is between
school heads with bachelor’s degree and with doc-
torate degrees (MD=-56.535* p<0.05), and between
school heads with master’s degrees and doctorate
degrees (MD= -.33851* p<0.05). Consistently, the Notes: OLC- Over-all Leadership Competencies,
highest educational qualification turned to be of ad- OCBC- Over-all Core Behavior Competences;
vantage in demonstrating the said competency. Thus, For School Performance: ELAC- Extraordinary
school heads who are full-pledged doctorate holders Level of Achievement and Commitment; EE- Ex-
have acquired considerable knowledge and skills on ceeded Expectations; ME- Met Expectations; FME-
people performance management better than those Failed to Meet the Expectations; and CBE- Consis-
school head with master’s and bachelor’s degrees, tently Below Expectations.
respectively. This may imply that their studies or
For Competencies: RM- Role Model; CD- Consis-
any other experiences have allowed them to demon-
tently Demonstrated; MD- Most of the Time Demon-
strate the said competency at work. These results
strated; SD- Sometimes Demonstrated; and RD-
confirm the descriptive results above where those
Rarely Demonstrated.
with doctorate degrees have become role models in
demonstrating the people performance management Table 2. ANOVA Results Comparing School Per-
competence. formance and Leadership Competencies of School
Heads Using their Highest Educational Qualifica-
tions
MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL JASSH 6 (5), 1190−1196 (2020) 1193
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE, LEADERSHIP AND CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES OF
SCHOOL HEADS: DOES HIGHER DEGREE MATTER?
Table 3. Post Hoc Tests of Multiple Comparison on
Leadership Competencies of School Heads
cultivate a learning environment by structuring in-
teractive experiences (DepEd, 2015). The ANOVA
results (F= 5.959, p<.05) revealed a significant dif-
ference in the over-all demonstration of leadership
competencies. This significant difference is between
those school heads with bachelor’s and doctorate de-
grees (Mean Difference =-.47222, p <.05). Thus, the
highest educational qualification matters in demon-
strating people performance management, people de-
velopment, and leading people. Those with doctorate
degrees have the advantage over those with bache-
lor’s degrees in demonstrating these competencies.
Table 4. ANOVA Results Comparing Core Behavior
Competencies of School Heads using their Highest
Educational Qualifications

Moreover, ANOVA results (F=4.463, p< 0.05) un-

veiled a statistically significant difference in the
demonstration of people development competence.
The Post Hoc Test using Tukey confirms that the
significant difference is between school heads with Table 5. Post Hoc Tests of Multiple Comparison on
bachelor’s degrees and doctorate degrees (MD =- Leadership Competences of School Heads
.43728*, p<0.05). These results have similar impli-
cations with the two competencies on leadership.
This means that school heads with doctorate degrees
have acquired and can demonstrate people devel-
opment competency better than their counterparts,
especially over with those with bachelor’s degrees.
Specifically, they can improve the skills and effec-
tiveness of individuals in school through employing
a range of development strategies; facilitate work-
force effectiveness through coaching and motivating
them and develop people within a work environment
that promotes mutual trust and respect; conceptu-
alize and implement learning environment to meet
identified training needs; do long-term coaching and
training by arranging appropriate and helpful assign-
ments , formal training or other experiences; and can
JASSH 6 (5), 1190−1196 (2020) MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL 1194

MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL
Table 4 displays ANOVA results on compared core
behavior competencies of school heads in terms of
highest educational attainment. As can be seen, all
components of core behavioral competencies
revealed significant differences. These findings are
supported by the post hoc test results in table 5. Post
hoc test revealed further that there are significant
differences in the acquired and demonstrated self-
management (MD=-.41974*,p<0.05), profession-
alism and ethics (MD=-.47193*,p<0.05), results
focus (MD=-.43476*,p<0.05), teamwork
(MD=- .46930*,p<0.05), service orientation
behaviors(MD=-.50702*, p<0.05), and the overall
core behav-ior competencies (MD= -.46393*,
p<0.05) of those who have bachelors and
doctorate degrees. These indicate that the latter
group is more advanced over the former group
when it comes to demonstrating these core
behavior competencies. Limitedly, the significant
difference between those with bachelors and
masters’ degrees is only true in results focus
behaviors (MD=-.22108*,p<0.05). In consequence,
those school heads with masters’ degrees are also
ahead to those school heads who have bachelors’
degrees only. The former group is more results-
focused than the latter. Still, there are significant
differences in teamwork (MD= -.32117*, p<0.05),
service orientation (MD= -.32523*, p<0.05), and
innovation behaviors (MD= -.34319*, p<0.05), and
in overall core behaviors (MD= -.28759*, p<0.05)
between those with doctorate and masters’ degrees.
These imply that school heads with doctorate degrees
are again more advanced in demonstrating these core
behavior over those with masters’ degrees.
4 DISCUSSION
High school performance requires the effective use
of organizational resources through the leadership
functions of planning, organizing, leading, and mon-
itoring (Lunenburg, 2012). The results contradicted
the earlier claims that “School leadership
competencies in all types of schools were not
satisfactory and adequate to address the growing
quality expectations of learners and parents of
schools in Nepal” (Thapa, 2016, p.120).The results
show that regardless of educational attainment,
school performances were very satisfactory across
MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL
LEPARDO AND CAINGCOY
groups. Therefore, it is true that the principal
performance was at a good level (Wahab, 2012).
Ross et al. (2016) reported that among 13 core com-
petencies, professionalism turn out to be the most
prevailing core behaviors of school principals. In
the case of the present study, all core behaviors
considered were demonstrated with at least a high
level but very high in the case of those with doctorate
degrees.
Among the two tested hypotheses, Ho2 was rejected
since there is evidence that school heads with doc-
torate degrees can demonstrate significantly higher
in leadership and core behavior competencies over
those with bachelor’s and masters’ degrees. There-
fore, it does matter in acquiring and demonstrating
both the leadership and core behavior competencies.
The study of Piaw et al. (2014) was confirmed that
academic qualifications are significant factors of
leadership skills. However, the present study does
not find support in the report that claimed that
the level of education cannot vary the perceptions
of school leaders towards leadership competencies
(Bechel, 2010).
5 CONCLUSION
This study concluded that the highest educational
qualification cannot ensure an optimal level of
school performance. All groups (degrees) of par-
ticipants had very satisfactory ratings in-office per-
formance commitment and review (OPCR) which
implies that they all had exceeded the expectations.
School heads do not need to have a doctorate to be
able to exceed all expectations for school perfor-
mance. Thus, the highest educational qualification
does not matter in school performance. On the other
hand, the study further concluded that the highest
educational qualification enables school heads to
demonstrate the leadership and core behavioral
competencies at the role model level over their
counter-parts. Therefore, engaging in advanced
studies until getting the highest (doctorate) degree is
priceless. It matters in acquiring and practicing
people performance management,
peopledevelopment, and in leading people as well. It
also matters in acquiring and demonstrating self-
management, professional-ism and ethics, results
focus behaviors, teamwork, service orientation, and
JASSH 6 (5), 1190−1196 (2020) 1195
 SCHOOL PERFORMANCE, LEADERSHIP AND CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES OF
SCHOOL HEADS: DOES HIGHER DEGREE MATTER?
innovation. The study sug-gested to policy and
decision-makers, funders, and education officials to
continue sending current and future school leaders
to take advantage of allowing them to acquire an
optimal level of these competen-cies. Thus, this is
a good reason to sustain efforts and support
educational advancement. This would encourage
concerned officials to revisit current poli-cies
relevant to scholarships so that there would more
prospective school leaders who could avail the same
privileges. This study joined the previous recommen-
dation that school principals should be provided with
more opportunities for professional development to
eventually improve their leadership qualities (Piaw
et al., 2014).
6 REFERENCES
1. Bechel, B. C. (2010). An Examination of the
Leadership Competences within a Community College
Leadership Development Program (A Dissertation).
Columbia: University of Mis-souri.
Clark, D., Martorell, P. & Rockoff, J. (2009). School
Principals and School Performance. A Working Paper 38.
2. Washington, USA: Calder, The Urban Institute. Retrieved
from https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jrockoff/
cmr_principals_calder_WP38.pdf
Department of Education. (2015). DepEd Order No. 2,
series of 2015: Guidelines on the Establishment and
Implementation of the Results-based Performance
Management System in the Department of Education.
Manila, Philippines: DepEd.
3. Ferrari, J. L. (2018). Leading Effective Change in Schools
of the 21stCentury: The Attributes, Behaviors, and
Practices of Effective School Principals (A Dissertations).
Chicago, USA: Loyola University Chicago. Retrieved
from https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3797&context=luc_diss
4. Goden, L. T., Lumbab, N. T., Niez, R. A. & Coton, V.
G. (2016). Influence of School Heads’ Instructional
Competence on Teachers’ Management in Leyte
Division, Philippines. International Journal of
Engineering Sciences and Research Technology, 5 (7),
513-530.
5. Lunenburg, F. C. (2012). The Principal and the School:
What Do Principals Do? National Forum of Educational
Administration and Supervision Journal, 27 (4), 1-13.
6. Nathanaili, V. (2016). Teacher’s Influence Scale
from their Colleagues and Principals: Its Relation
with School Performance in Public Schools of the
Albanian Educational System. The IAFOR Journal
of Education, 4(1), 106-121
JASSH 6 (5), 1190−1196 (2020)
7. National Association of Elementary School
Principals and National Association of Secondary
School Principals. (2013).the Importance of
Principal Lead ership. Virginia, USA: NAESP and
NASSP.
8. Piaw, C.Y., Hee, T. F., Ismail, N. R., & Ying, L. H.
(2014). Factors of Leadership Skills of Secondary
School Principals. Procedia- Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 116, 5125-5129.
9. Ross, D. J., & Cozzens, J. A. (2016). The
Principalship: Essential Core Competencies for
Instructional Leadership and Its Impact on School
Climate. Journal of Education and Training
Studies, 4(9), 162-176.
10. Sawati, M. J., Anwar, S & Majoka, M. I. (2013).
Do Qualification, Experience, and Age Matter for
Principals Leadership Styles? International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social
Sciences, 3, (7), 403-413. Retrieved from https://
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/679c/
f1aaf40bc650283f9d cb736a6c1 0b22a9772.pdf
11. Thapa, K. B. (2016). Present and Importance levels
leadership competencies of principals in Nepalese
Schools. Journal of Advanced Academic Research,
3 (1), 111-121.
12. Tilahon, A. (2014). The Relationship of School
Principal’s Leadership Styles to School
Performance in Secondary School of Agnwa Zone
at Gambella National Regional State. Jimma
University Institute of Education and Professional
Development Studies.
13. Wahab, A. (2012). Performance of School Prin-
cipal at State Islamic Senior High School in Ex-
Surakarta Region. Jurnal Analisa,19 (02), 255-
ORCID Caingcoy Manuel E. https: orcid.org/00
00 - 00 02-3862-1561
How to cite this article: Lepardo R.J.L., Caingcoy
M.E. School Performance, Leadership and Core
Behavioral Competencies of School Heads: Does
Higher Degree Matter?. Journal of Advances in
Social Science and Humanities. 2020;1190−1196.
https://doi.org/10.15520/jassh.v6i5.491
MANUSCRIPT CENTRAL 1196